This paper presents a methodology for building ontologies, emphasizing the ontology capture phase. The authors outline a skeletal methodology for developing ontologies, including stages such as identifying purpose, building the ontology (including capture, coding, and integrating existing ontologies), evaluation, and documentation. They also discuss the importance of defining cognitive basic terms first, which can reduce rework. The paper reviews existing work in the field, including IDEF5, Gruber's principles for ontology design, and Skuce's work on reaching agreement on shared ontologies. The authors describe their own experience in constructing a significant ontology, focusing on the capture phase. They emphasize the need for precise, unambiguous definitions and the challenges of handling ambiguous terms. They propose a middle-out approach to defining terms, starting with cognitive basic concepts before moving to more abstract and specific ones. The paper also discusses the importance of using natural language definitions as a basis for formalization and the need for clear documentation of assumptions. The authors conclude that a comprehensive methodology should include guidelines for defining competency questions, separating capture from coding, and ensuring that the ontology is accessible to non-technical users. The paper highlights the importance of clear, precise definitions and the need for a structured approach to ontology development.This paper presents a methodology for building ontologies, emphasizing the ontology capture phase. The authors outline a skeletal methodology for developing ontologies, including stages such as identifying purpose, building the ontology (including capture, coding, and integrating existing ontologies), evaluation, and documentation. They also discuss the importance of defining cognitive basic terms first, which can reduce rework. The paper reviews existing work in the field, including IDEF5, Gruber's principles for ontology design, and Skuce's work on reaching agreement on shared ontologies. The authors describe their own experience in constructing a significant ontology, focusing on the capture phase. They emphasize the need for precise, unambiguous definitions and the challenges of handling ambiguous terms. They propose a middle-out approach to defining terms, starting with cognitive basic concepts before moving to more abstract and specific ones. The paper also discusses the importance of using natural language definitions as a basis for formalization and the need for clear documentation of assumptions. The authors conclude that a comprehensive methodology should include guidelines for defining competency questions, separating capture from coding, and ensuring that the ontology is accessible to non-technical users. The paper highlights the importance of clear, precise definitions and the need for a structured approach to ontology development.